22726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Notices 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year reviews were such 

that full reviews pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed 

(76 FR 8772, February 15, 2011). A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in these reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

file an additional notice of appearance. 

The Secretary will maintain a public 

service list containing the names and 

addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

reviews. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the reviews need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 28, 

2011, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the 

reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 

October 20, 2011, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before October 12, 2011. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on October 17, 

2011, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony incamera no later than 

7 business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the reviews may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is October 

11, 2011. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is October 31, 2011; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

reviews may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the reviews on or before October 31, 

2011. On November 22, 2011, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before November 29, 2011, but such 

final comments must not contain new 

factual information and must otherwise 

comply with section 207.68 of the 

Commission’s rules. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 Fed. Reg. 68036 

(November 8, 2002). Even where 

electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 Fed. 

Reg. 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These reviewsare being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 18, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9783 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–694] 

Certain Multimedia Display and 

Navigation Devices and Systems, 

Components Thereof, and Products 

Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Extend 

the Target Date; Request for 

Supplemental Briefing 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to extend 

the target date for completion of the 

above-captioned investigation from 

April 18, 2011, to June 17, 2011. The 

Commission is requesting supplemental 

briefing from the public and from the 

parties to the investigation with respect 

to certain questions set forth below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Notices 22727 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the instant 

investigation on December 16, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Pioneer 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and 

Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. of Long 

Beach, California (collectively, 

‘‘Pioneer’’). 74 FR 66676 (Dec. 16, 2009). 

The complaint alleged violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain multimedia display and 

navigation devices and systems, 

components thereof, and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent Nos. 5,365,448 (‘‘the ’448 

patent’’), 5,424,951 (‘‘the ’951 patent’’), 

and 6,122,592 (‘‘the ’592 patent’’). The 

complaint named Garmin International, 

Inc. of Olathe, Kansas, Garmin 

Corporation of Taiwan (collectively, 

‘‘Garmin’’) and Honeywell International 

Inc. of Morristown, New Jersey 

(‘‘Honeywell’’) as the proposed 

respondents. Honeywell was 

subsequently terminated from the 

investigation. 

On December 16, 2010, the ALJ issued 

his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’). In 

his final ID, the ALJ found no violation 

of section 337 by Garmin. Specifically, 

the ALJ found that the accused products 

do not infringe claims 1 and 2 of the 

’448 patent, claims 1 and 2 of the ’951 

patent, or claims 1 and 2 of the ’592 

patent. The ALJ found that the ‘592 

patent was not proven to be invalid and 

that Pioneer has established a domestic 

industry under 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). 

On February 23, 2011, the Commission 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. 

Target Date: The Commission has 

determined to extend the target date for 

completion of the investigation by sixty 

(60) days from April 18, 2011 to June 17, 

2011, to accommodate supplemental 

briefing. 

Supplemental Briefing Request: A 

domestic industry may be shown to 

exist, inter alia, by ‘‘substantial 

investment’’ in the ‘‘exploitation’’ of an 

asserted patent. 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C). 

Such investment may take the form of 

‘‘engineering, research and 

development, or licensing,’’ but other 

kinds of investments are not precluded. 

See Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors 

and Components Thereof and Products 

Containing Same, Inv. No. 337–TA–650, 

Comm’n Op. at 45 (Apr. 14, 2010). The 

following questions explore the 

domestic industry requirement in the 

context of a complainant that invests in 

licensing a patent portfolio, which 

includes the asserted patent among the 

licensed patents. 

(1) Assuming that the evidence in the 

record does not show the patent 

asserted in a section 337 investigation to 

have more or less value than the rest of 

the patents of a portfolio, to what extent 

should the Commission attribute total 

expenses in licensing the portfolio 

toward the complainant’s investment in 

exploitation of the asserted patent under 

section 337(a)(3)(C)? Please comment on 

whether the statute authorizes the 

Commission to allocate to the asserted 

patent the amount of the total expenses 

divided by the number of patents in the 

portfolio? 

(2) Assuming that the statute 

authorizes allocation of total licensing 

expenses across all of the patents in the 

portfolio, what is the significance of 

evidence demonstrating that at the time 

the licensing expenses were incurred, 

the complainant did or did not present 

information to potential licensees that 

the asserted patent was being practiced 

or infringed by the respondent or a third 

party? What is the significance of 

evidence showing that the asserted 

patent was more or less important or 

valuable than the others in the 

portfolio? What is the significance of 

evidence indicating that, while total 

expenses in licensing a portfolio may be 

substantial, the share of the expenses 

allocated to the asserted patent is not? 

(3) In light of any practical benefits of 

licensing a group of patents in a 

portfolio rather than licensing patents 

individually, does the statute permit 

expenses in the licensing of an entire 

portfolio to be considered an investment 

in the exploitation of the individual 

asserted patent? 

(4) How should licensing expenses 

and activities relating to (a) crosslicenses and (b) global portfolio licenses 

(i.e., U.S. and foreign patents) be treated 

under section 337(a)(3)(C)? 

(5) What is the nature and extent of 

the ‘‘nexus’’ between an asserted patent 

and a licensing expense or activity that 

is sufficient to prove that such expense 

or activity constitutes an investment in 

the asserted patent? What factors should 

be considered in determining whether 

the required nexus is established? What 

is the evidentiary showing required to 

prove a nexus between the asserted 

patent and the licensing activities and 

expenses in the context of a portfolio 

license? 

(6) Is a ‘‘nexus’’ between an asserted 

patent and a licensing activity sufficient 

to prove that expenses associated with 

that licensing activity are an investment 

in the asserted patent under section 

337(a)(3)(C) even if other patents are 

involved? See ID at 165 (citing Certain 

3G Wideband Code Division Multiple 

Access (WCDMA) Handsets and 

Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA– 

601, Order No. 20 (unreviewed ID) (June 

24, 2010)). If a ‘‘nexus’’ is sufficient, is 

the strength of that nexus relevant in 

determining the amount of investment 

in the asserted patent(s)? For example, 

is the number of patents included in a 

license relevant in determining the 

amount of investment in an asserted 

patent(s) compared to the expenses 

generally associated with licensing all of 

the patents? Is the breadth of technology 

covered by the portfolio, as a whole, 

relative to the breadth of technology 

covered by the asserted patent(s) 

relevant in determining the amount of 

investment in the asserted patent(s)? 

(7) In Certain Stringed Musical 

Instruments and Components Thereof, 

Inv. No. 337–TA–586, the Commission 

noted that ‘‘the requirement for showing 

the existence of a domestic industry will 

depend on the industry in question, and 

the complainant’s relative size.’’ 

Comm’n Op. at 25–26 (May 16, 2008). 

Please comment on the appropriate 

context for determining whether a 

complainant’s investments in licensing 

a portfolio of patents, which includes 

the asserted patent, is ‘‘substantial’’ 

within the meaning of section 

337(a)(3)(C) in a particular industry? In 

other words, in determining whether 

appropriately identified investments in 

licensing the portfolio constitute a 

‘‘substantial investment in [the asserted 

patent’s] exploitation’’ within the 

meaning of the statute, against what 

specific measure should those 

investments be assessed? In discussing 

the context for determining whether 

portfolio licensing investments are 

substantial, please discuss relevant 

factors, criteria, and evidence that 

should be considered in determining 

whether the complainant’s licensing 

investments are ‘‘substantial’’ in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 78 / Friday, April 22, 2011 / Notices 

context of a portfolio license. Please 

include in the discussion, how these 

factors, criteria, and evidence may vary 

depending on the industry in question 

and complainant’s relative size. 

(8) Please comment on the 

significance of whether and to what 

extent the complainant receives 

royalties under the license agreement or 

acquires other rights or benefits as a 

result of a portfolio license in assessing 

whether the complainant’s licensing 

expenses and activities constitute a 

‘‘substantial investment in [the asserted 

patent’s] exploitation.’’ 

(9) Please comment on the 

significance of whether and to what 

extent a complainant engages in 

ancillary exploitation activities that 

frequently accompany licensing efforts, 

such as development, engineering, or 

servicing of licensed articles, in 

assessing whether a complainant has 

made a ‘‘substantial investment in [the 

asserted patent’s] exploitation’’ through 

licensing. 

(10) For the parties to the 

investigation only: 

a. Please cite and discuss the specific 

evidence of record in this investigation 

supporting your position as to each of 

the above questions. 

b. Assuming the licensing efforts of 

complainant Pioneer and Discovision 

Associaties are viewed together, to what 

extent did the expenses in licensing 

Pioneer’s navigation portfolio (before 

Pioneer retained outside counsel) 

represent Pioneer’s investment in 

licensing the asserted patents? Please 

support your response with citations to 

the record. 

c. Please comment on the weight that 

should be given to documents 

concerning complainant’s licensing 

activities and expenses from which 

information has been redacted. Please 

discuss the significance, vel non, of the 

content of the redacted documents to 

the complainant’s licensing activities 

and investments in view of such 

redactions. 

Parties to the investigation and 

members of the public are invited to file 

written submissions addressing the 

questions set forth above regarding the 

domestic industry requirement of 

section 337(a)(3)(C). Opening 

submissions of the parties to the 

investigation are due no later than May 

3, 2011. A public version of these 

submissions must be filed with the 

Secretary no later than May 10, 2011. 

Reply submissions of the parties to the 

investigation are due no later than May 

17, 2011. Written submissions from 

members of the public will be accepted 

anytime on or before May 17, 2011. No 

further submissions on these issues will 

be permitted unless otherwise ordered 

by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 

12 true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 210.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary 

and may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.42–50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 18, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9784 Filed 4–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

Proposed Extension of Information 

Collection Request Submitted for 

Public Comment and 

Recommendations; Alternative Method 

of Compliance for Certain SEPs 

pursuant to 29 CFR 2520.104–49 

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a preclearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 

95). This program helps to ensure that 

requested data can be provided in the 

desired format, reporting burden (time 

and financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. Currently, the 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration is soliciting comments 

on the proposed extension of the 

collection of information included in 

the alternative method of compliance 

for certain simplified employee 

pensions regulation (29 CFR 2520.104– 

49). 

A copy of the information collection 

request (ICR) can be obtained by 

contacting the individual shown in the 

Addresses section of this notice or at 

http://www.RegInfo.gov. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office shown in the 

Addresses section on or before June 21, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: G. Christopher Cosby, 

Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, (202) 693–8410, FAX (202) 

693–4745 (these are not toll-free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 110 of the Employment 

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) 

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe 

alternative methods of compliance with 

the reporting and disclosure 

requirements of Title I of ERISA for 

pension plans. Simplified employee 

pensions (SEPs) are established in 

section 408(k) of the Internal Revenue 

Code (Code). Although SEPs are 

primarily a development of the Code 

and subject to its requirements, SEPs are 

also pension plans subject to the 

reporting and disclosure requirements 

of Title I of ERISA. 

The Department previously issued a 

regulation under the authority of section 

110 of ERISA (29 CFR 2520.104–49) that 

intended to relieve sponsors of certain 

SEPs from ERISA’s Title I reporting and 

disclosure requirements by prescribing 

an alternative method of compliance. 

These SEPs are, for purposes of this 

Notice, referred to as ‘‘non-model’’ SEPs 

because they exclude (1) those SEPs 

which are created through use of 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 

5305–SEP, and (2) those SEPs in which 

the employer limits or influences the 

employees’ choice to IRAs into which 

employers’ contributions will be made 

and on which participant withdrawals 

are prohibited. The disclosure 

requirements in this regulation were 

developed in conjunction with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS Notice 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES